Dear Editor,
At least we are seeing one thing at work in the letters from Mr Craig. It is exactly what I have been saying for two years to the GNBA board: he is confusing the issue. The fundamental question is not answered, how did Vishok Persaud and E-Networks get those frequencies in the UHF band? Also, where is E-Networks licensed to operate? It seems as if it is nationally, and we cannot let that stand. It is just as outrageous and unlawful as the issue of the 12 radio licences by former president Jagdeo. We can, as a fallback position, simply issue new licences for radio to other people, but this privilege given to E-Networks cannot be undone in that manner, and would constitute unfair competition to its competitors.
Mr Craig is said to be in China studying. He left Guyana allegedly without telling anyone, and has evaded the lawyers of myself and Mr Vic Insanally who are seeking to sue him. He has also not resigned as yet, but I would like everyone to know that based on the CoI’s findings, allowing him to resign will not be acceptable to me, and that he should be fired. Only when they do that will the rest of us be fully be exonerated.
There are three conclusions/recommendations recorded in Major General (rtd) Joseph Singh’s CoI report which I specifically want to highlight, since they formed a very significant part of it:
- “ The modus operandi of the previous [Jagdeo] administration led to subjective decisions being made, which included allegations on the award of Frequencies and licences. This distribution was frowned upon by the then Opposition, the now current administration, which pledged to correct these inconsistencies. When this was discussed at the Board meetings, the intransigence of the Chairman inhibited the work of the Board. The members worked assiduously to correct the perceived wrongs of the previous administration. Director Vieira with his institutional memory, and other Directors with their passionate commitment pioneered these objectives and initiatives.”
Findings: The Board of Inquiry is convinced, based on the evidence put before it:
* That Mr Craig deliberately allowed the situation to fester to serve his own purposes;
* Received the oral and written allegations from Mr Charles and failed to establish the facts from Ms Boyal and Ms Connelly;
* Failed to do the courtesy of advising Directors Vieira and Insanally;
* Failed to convene a meeting of the Board to deliberate on the matter;
* Failed to observe the protocol relating to disclosures to the media;
* Publicized without any preliminary investigation, the allegations of Mr Charles;
* Allowed the media to highlight the allegations;
* By identifying Mr Vieira and Mr Insanally as the two Directors against whom the allegations were made, Chairman Leonard Craig impugned their character.
- Conclusion
Having regard to the articles in the print media, the BoI concluded that actions of the Chairman were not in keeping with his mandate. His conduct has brought the authority into disrepute. To bring a person into disrepute is to lower the reputation of a person in the eyes of members of the public to a significant extent. The BoI determined that the implications of Mr Craig’s actions brought the directors and the authority into disrepute. The BoI concluded that the public would be influenced by what it read and the interpretations would adversely affect the image of the authority and the public perception of the directors.
- Conclusion
Having regard to the disrespectful relationship that exists between Director Vieira and the Chairman, and having impugned the characters of Directors Vieira and Insanally without giving them the benefit of a hearing, Mr Craig has compromised his ability to be Chairman of the Board.
* Mr Craig should no longer continue to serve as Chairman of the Board.
I knew that Mr Craig had an agenda, and his letters if read in that context confuse the issue of why and how E-Networks got UHF broadcast frequencies to operate their cable system, which as Chairman of the GNBA he did nothing to correct, even though the rest of us were against it. Now there are these letters, and one is left to wonder why?
Finally I am a Guyanese and these frequencies are my property, as they are of all Guyanese, and since I know about the matter given my background as a pioneer broadcaster, I have an obligation to point out to the public that something is amiss in this matter. Guyana is not going digital; we as a nation have not made that decision as yet, and as in Trinidad, for example, the discussions and the consultations and the costs as to whether they will introduce digital are still ongoing. There is nothing which is written in stone that we must go digital, and the NFMU is planning this change-over without a stated position from the government and indeed the GNBA or the poor people of Guyana. Are we going to do like Mexico, just go digital and buy US$2 billion worth of TVs for our citizens, a lot of whose television sets cannot receive digital signals and who would have to purchase additional equipment to demodulate the digital signal to analog form to accommodate the change-over. Since it is broadcasting which will be most affected the NFMU had no right to commence the allocations of frequencies in a manner which assumed that we as a nation have an obligation to go digital. The evidence is that one man, Valmiki Singh, is making this decision for all of us, and I totally object. It is not as if he is recommending it, he is proceeding as if we have decided that this is what we have to do, when in fact we do not.
Yours faithfully,
Tony Vieira